[ ]

To the PRESIDENT,

VICE-PRESIDENTS, and FELLOWS of the Society of ANTIQUARIES, LONDON.

GENTLEMEN,

OUGHT amply to apologize for withdrawing the

I the

following Pieces from your Publications after the favourable Reception they have met with at your hands; and have only to urge, that I thought it more becoming my Office, as well as more respectful to the KING, who has vouchfafed to accept them, that they should appear as an independent Work.

I have not the Vanity to lay any Claim to publick Favour-and therefore only look to the very few who may be attached to fuch Subjects from Curiofity, Office, or Choice

Contentus paucis lectoribus

HOR.

though I confefs to have had the Prefumption to shelter myself under the Size and Type of your ARCHAEOLOGIA, with a modest Wish that these Papers may (by fome at least) be confidered as collateral Appendages to that learned and valuable Work.

As I am not without Hopes of adding to this little Publication, as Opportunity and Documents may offer, I have styled it PART THE FIRST;-and after returning my Thanks to fuch Gentlemen of the Society, and to my Friends in general, who have hitherto affifted me with their Communications, I have the Honour to be,

GENTLEMEN,

Your obliged

And moft obedient Servant,

Whitehall, April 23, 1782..

SAMUEL PEGGE.

CURIA LI A:

OR,

AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, &c.

DISSERTATION I.

ON THE OBSOLETE OFFICE

of the

ESQUIRES of the KING'S BODY *.

To the Prefident of the Society of Antiquaries, London.

SIR,

A

MONG the various fubjects which attract the attention of your learned Society, thofe, I should imagine, cannot be unacceptable which relate to any ancient branch of the boufhold of your Royal PATRON; and as feveral memoirs are found in the ARCHAEOLOGIA, confifting of matter of this kind, I beg leave through your favour, to offer, with deference, fome account of the ancient and now obsolete office of THE ESQUIRES

* Read at the Society of Antiquaries, May 20, 1779.

of the KING'S BODY. As the fubject is but juft out of the reach of viva voce information, it may perhaps be thought scarce ripe enough for investigation; but I believe I may venture to affert that the nature, duty, &c. of these officers are as little known, as if they had been discontinued for ages, though they were in being at the beginning of the prefent century. I incline then to believe, Sir, that the ESQUIRES of the BODY were an appendage to the KING as being a KNIGHT; and as every knight had anciently two EsQUIRES attending him in an intimate degree, fo the KING might very well be intitled at leaft to four, which was no more than was claimed by every PEER, while a knight-bachelor had but two *. According to Mr. Camden, "One of the EsQUIRES carried the knight's bel"met, the other his buckler, and were his infeparable compa"nions, holding lands of him by efcuage in the fame manner as "the KNIGHT held of the king by knight's-fervice." These are Mr. Camden's words, and yet I cannot but think, though I am ashamed to dispute fo high an authority, that he has been led into an error, and that the ESQUIRES bore the KNIGHT'S lance and buckler, and not the helmet and buckler. I take my ground for this prefumption from the appearance which the CHAMPION affords us on CORONATIONS (perhaps the only representation now to be had of a KNIGHT arm'd cap à pié) who

* Prefatory Difcourfe to Camden's Britannia. Lord Audley had four EsQUIRES at the battle of Poitiers 1356, and his liberality to them for their fervices is on record, where he transfers to them the bounty which EDWARD the Black Prince had bestowed upon himself. [v. Echard's Hift. of Eng.] And Mr. Selden mentions an earl of Salisbury who had four EsSQUIRES in the reign of king Richard II. Tit. Hon. p. 834. edit. 1631.] Sir Henry Spelman likewise tells us in general terms that the nobility had allowed to knights-bachelors [Proceres quatuor, habuiffe dicuntur]. Gloff, in voce Armiger.

anciently four, when two only were equites aurati duos, [fc. armigeros]

is

is preceded by two ESQUIRES, one of whom bears his lance and the other his field *.

WE We may add to this, that the very terms ARMIGER and SCUTIFER, which were their ancient proper titles, imply rather the bearing of the offenfive and defenfive weapons of the KNIGHT than any part of his body armour, and point directly at the lance and shield: and further it can easily be difcerned that the offices of ARMIGER and SCUTIFER were formerly diftinct from each other, with a manifeft inferiority on the part of the SCUTIFER or fhield-bearer; for, exclufive of what will appear hereafter in Chaucer's cafe, it is obfervable in Sandford's account of the coronation of King James II. (which was as full,. accurate, and ftudiously complete as poffible in all its branches) that of the champion's two ESQUIRES, the ARMIGER (or he who bore the lance) had the poft of honour and went on the right hand of the other (the SCUTIFER) who carried the shield..

THE KNIGHT had likewife in his fuite certain PAGES to be occafionally ready to do him fervice, who alfo appear in the ceremonial of the CHAMPION as depicted by Sandford, and the belmet when not worn by the KNIGHT might very properly be born by one of them. I speak of Knights Bachelors, and it is of them that Mr. Camden is fpeaking; for BARONS and the higher orders of nobility had four EsQUIRES, as we have feen, and in fuch case a third ESQUIRE might bear the helmet. But to proceed with the ESQUIRES in queftion. Though many ESQUIRES

* See Ogleby's Coronation of king Charles II. and Sandford's Coronation of king James II. in both which we have drawings of this ceremonial. The heraldic account alfo fays that of the two ESQUIRES attendant on the champion (who is generally fuppofed to be a knight), one was to bear the lance and the other the fbield. [v. I. 7. in Off. Arm.] And further Mr. Du Frefne fays, that those who carried the arms and the field (arma ac fcuta) of knights were called ARMIGERI and SCUTIFERI. [v. Gloff, in voce Valettus.]